Beyond Statism And Cosmopolitanism

According to the World Bank,there are still about 800 million people living in poverty around the world.There is no doubt that global poverty is one of the most serious problems of our time.However,it is also one of the most difficult problems for the current United Nations.Because the current world order is made up of nation-states,and there is not an effective central government on a global scale,the problem of global poverty seems difficult to solve effectively.And the government within nation-state is generally committed to solving domestic poverty problems and reducing inequality among citizens.In particular,Western countries have long-term traditions of welfare state,they adjust the income gap of domestic citizens to protect the poor to get a decent life through the tax policy.In spite of this,Rawls was still dissatisfied with the welfare state policy of the liberal democracy in his A Theory of Justice,he pointed out that its concern for the poorest groups of society is still insufficient,and thus put forward a theory of justice(including the two principles of justice)to apply to the basic structure of society to maximize the socio-economic status of the most vulnerable groups.Social justice theories focus on the distribution of resources among domestic citizens and hope to achieve a more equitable distribution.A lot of political philosophers with realistic concern has focused on the international field with great concern about global poverty and inequality,they put the world poverty under the judge of justice standards,introduce the concept of global justice and point out that the global field should also be the field of implementing distributive justice.Thus,the theories of global justice related to the distribution of resources came into being.Rawls' s principles of justice contain the principle of equal right to freedom,the principle of equitable equality of opportunity and the principle of difference,in which the principle of difference is particularly used to regulate domestic socioeconomic inequality.However,these theorists advocate the extension of principles of Rawlsian egalitarian justice,which are originally used in the country to regulate the gap between rich and poor countries,and thus they belong to cosmopolitan theorists.However,this genre has been widely criticized,and Rawls can not agree with this radical view.Some theorists still insist on the attitude of the nation-state bias,stressing that domestic citizens should be paid more attention and the country is the field of implementing distributive justice.In other words,they argue that a state has an obligation of distributive justice to domestic citizens,but there is only humanitarian assistance of a very low degree for the poor of foreign countries by securing their basic human rights.Thus,these scholars formed a tit-for-tat position and they were nationalists and cosmopolitanists in the debates of global justice.Nationalists and cosmopolitanists have their own theoretical concern and value claim,but also have their own theoretical limitations.Nationalism tends to maintain the status quo,and the radical view of cosmopolitanism is unacceptable to us.Today the trend of globalization makes the interconnection and frequent exchanges between countries possible,and national poverty is partly because of international factors,and nationalism has just ignored the importance of this trend for international justice.Cosmopolitanism is too dependent on the trend of integration of countries around the world,the international community and the similarity of domestic society,resulting in the global egalitarian unreasonable conclusion.After clarifying their basic debates,this paper argues that they have some important flaws and are therefore not suitable as a suitable global justice theory.The long-standing existence of bipolar positions makes the third path come into being,and the emergence of the third wave of global justice is the same as this.They try to break through theoretical limitations of the two standpoints and get out of the third path.In view of the complexity of the world order,these theorists are committed to breaking the bipartite picture of nationalism and cosmopolitanism,trying to put forward a more perfect theory to be realistic and provide a more favorable program for global poverty.The third way theorists are neither nationalist nor cosmopolitan,and develop moderation between the two standpoints.They saw the limitations of the two schools in the debate of global justice,trying to overcome the drawbacks by new theories.This paper first identifies the third wave theory as new currents,combs the different schools of the third wave theory in the budding state,which mainly include pluralist internationalism theory,coercion based theory of global justice and international fairness theory of practice-dependence.The pluralist internationalism is inventive and argues that there are different principles of justice in the current global environment that require us to assume different obligations of justice for the global poor,and these different principles of justice are an integral part of pluralist internationalism theory.The coercion-based theory of global justice emphasizes the coercive nature of the international system and its nature of restricting freedom,and the coercive system and behavior in the international field need to be justified to argue the distributive justice at the international level.The international fairness theory of practice-dependence emphasizes that states should distribute the gains from trade fairly in the international interaction and avoid the use of each other and beggar-thy-neighbor policies to pursue their own interests.Secondly,this article critically examines their theoretical advantages and disadvantages.In the case of pluralist internationalism,it ignores the causal chain of poverty;in the case of coercion-based theory of global justice,it is either similar to the position of nationalism or misunderstands the conditions of distributive justice;In the case of international fairness theory of practice-dependence,it ignores the diversity of international sources of injustice or unreasonable fundamental institutional arrangements.Nevertheless,this paper still reconstructs and defends a pluralist internationalism theory of global justice,and has made appropriate amendments to it.This paper revises the pluralist internationalism theory by contextualism,contextualism concerns the causal chain of poverty,emphasizing different principles apply to different contexts,the revised pluralist internationalism theory is a more decent global justice theory.